Pages

Sunday, 6 December 2015

Kitchener: cooking up the enemy?

Best in Show Daily last month ran a piece by Jay Kitchener arguing that unless the fancy stepped up to the mark politically, the AKC and the purebred dog were doomed - the victims of a clever and organised campaign by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Kitchener writes:

"It’s a political agenda for social change that seeks a world without purebred dogs and eventually no dogs at all.If you think that’s an exaggeration, then you’re not paying attention to the very real and dangerous changes to dog ownership that are sweeping the nation.If you think this professional political agenda for social change could never happen, you’re mistaken.Twenty-five years ago not many of us truly believed gay marriage and legal marijuana would ever become a reality."

He goes on to bemoan that the purebred lobby has not seen fit to campaign against "the wave of anti-pet shop legislation sweeping the nation" and in particular he states clearly:

"All dog breeders have a right to breed dogs in the manner they choose to breed them."

Have a read of the whole thing herethen come back and tell me what you think.

• The view from here is that the AKC is auguring into the ground because it has failed to embrace reform - in both the way it views dogs and in the way its breeders produce and value them.

• The view from here is that breeders do not have the right to breed dogs in the manner they choose to breed them when it causes them harm.

• The view from here is that while HSUS is clever and sneaky in its efforts to secure local ordinances that impact negatively on some good dog breeders, it is not the bogeyman the purebred fancy thinks it is and it does not want "all dogs gone".

• The view from here is that the best way to tackle the perceived threat is for the AKC and breeders to embrace better science and breed dogs in such a way that there is no question about their worth or welfare.

• The view from here is that gay marriage is a good thing. Oh, and that the legal recreational use of cannabis does considerably less harm than breeding a Bulldog or a Pug or a crippled German Shepherd.

144 comments:

No one should of the right to do anything if it causes harm to something else. I suspect his forefathers never expected black people to have equal rights in law, would become a reality either. Anyway I must get, I'm off to my friends gay marriage, as I've got to pick up the marijuana for the wedding reception.

I think this whole American thing that dogs are seen as property needs closer examination.

Either Peta has more of a point than I've ever given them credit for or dog breeders and owners in the USA are seriously out to lunch and a good enough reason for me anyway why Peta should hang around a lot longer.

So many people wrote in after Kitch's article expressing their pro-views that their dogs are "their property" and as such they should have "the right" to do what ever they want with them that Im beginning to think there is some serious cog-native dissonance going on in that country.

Americans should stop seeing their dogs as property and start realising they are no more than legal guardians of the animals they choose to keep or to breed. They are the first to scream foul when the Chinese skin live dogs to eat and yet remain rigidly opposed to being told what they can or cannot get up to with their own dogs. By logical extension their children are seen as property too I suppose?!

Im thinking legislation might have to make that distinction for them, what constitutes property and what doesn't! They dont seem to have a f***ing clue! A dog might as well be a microwave oven, "heck" it might as well be in the microwave oven...

Wow, bestuvall, 'no need to let us in on your family history,' do you realise how bigoted and racist you sound making a comment like that. Calling a humans breeding in to question just because you don't like the truth told, that you let dogs fuck their half-sisters. Bring it out in to the cold light of day, it don't look very nice the truth does it bestuvall.

yeah, and you know all the family history of mutts that are breeding. quite possibly father daughter, mother son, etc. you just don't know what those 'accidental' breedings actually are and you won't know the long term effects til it's possibly too late, but hey, it makes $$ for shelters who will throw sad stories onto a litter. i'd rather know the history on my dog than take a chance of some mutt breedings

LOL I suppose you prefer dogs that are random bred( like most people) of course with random bred dogs you never know.. you might get a mother/ son breeding or father/ daughter.. sound good to you? Something tells me it does..

River P.. anthropomorphizing becomes you.it goes with your hair.. oh wait you were not taking about "those' extensions.. you were saying it is logical to extend what dogs are to what children are..or vice versa..PETA kills 90% of the animals it takes in It is GOOD for animals to be property other wise what are they?

Here come the Cavalry to the rescue bestuvall. Looks like the bigot and racist convention about to kick off. You see your purebreeds will be fucking their mother, father, siblings, grandparents because you deliberately make them do so, which sort of makes it a lot worse than an accidental mating between to relatives and when did two wrongs make a right. You think because a mutt does its sister, it's okay for you to do it knowingly. That's your case to exonerate the level of inbreeding in purebreed dogs, because a mutt did his sister. If we know about the inbreeding that makes it better. LOLActually there are plenty of people out there keeping records for their mutt breeding as you put it, because it ain't rocket science keeping records when breeding animals. I've been doing it for over 30 years and yet to have an accidental close relative mating or feel the need to do a close relative mating. No I don't mind dogs randomly bred, they seem to be doing okay with randomly breeding, before we jumped in and took control of it. Are you aware how much genetic spread has been lost since us humans took up the reins? I believe people like you need to get off your very loosely girthed high horse, stop making it about personally insulting each other, cross/mutt breeding verses purebreeding and realize that closing off small gene pools coupled with severe selective breeding, especially when the selective breeding is not for health or functionality for the species, is not a good thing and there is yet to be anything to support using it being a good thing. If you really care about dog, not breeds of dogs that you have made up, you would see that pure, cross, mutt breeding has a lot to offer each other. Unfortunately you just dig yourself in deeper, frightened to look beyond your trench, because for you it is not about dogs, it is about the breed of dog. The most aggressive dogs I have always found are the most frightened. For all you bravado bestuvall, your aggressive attitude belies you, you are frightened of change, it will happen though.'It is GOOD for animals to be property other wise what are they?' It is not good to classify animals as property. A lot of damage has been done to animals because of this classification in law. So many I have heard all to often after people have neglecting and caused awful distress to dogs, those fateful words, "Their my property, I can do what I like with them." A lot of people would and do consider property an inanimate object, not another sentient being. It leads to people treating them like an inanimate object and they think they can do what they want because they are classified as property. Imagine getting a dog and you had to register as legal guardian to a dog, rather than it just being a piece of property. That might make some people stop and think before getting one. It would not do more good than harm.

Anonymous 10:14 the thing about an accidental mating is that it is accidental and lacks the element of breeding for selective traits over generations, so a sister to brother mating of mutts would be statistically far less likely to have or have as many risks of inherited health conditions than the deliberate mating of a purebreed sister to brother. Basic genetics.So what you are saying is it is okay to mate brother to sister, mother to son, father to daughter, grandchildren to grandparents, as long as it is not accidental and you know the health conditions that you are breeding in to the offspring. You want to be sure that it was the brother for sure that fucked its sister and that you can be sure of the health conditions they will get. LOL

Hair extensions Bestavall!!?? Anyway I thought those were only for sad American "negras" like Tyra Banks who want to look the all American dream, the all white, all Miss America of their cruel childhood indoctrination.

Yes Beastuvall believes incest is perfectly acceptable if it's healthy incest. At least part of this word, homozygosity shouldn't be a surprise to them but let me fill in the missing blanks.

Homozygosity is the presence of two genes, inherited from the mother and the father, that are identical. Incestuous relationships increase the chances for homozygosity because there is little genetic diversity. Homozygosity causes harmful, but otherwise often rare, genetic disorders because two recessive genes are given the opportunity to match up.

So if grand mother Bestavall and grand father Bestuvall were siblings and perfectly healthy, there is still no guarantee that Bestuvall might be, none at all. And when Beastuvall sets up with their sister or even brother the offspring if any are guaranteed in fact to be more than just slightly odd etc

bestuvall, with comments like 'that are random bred( like most people)'I'm getting the vibe that you would prefer humans to be bred like purebreed dogs and your comment 'you might get a mother/ son breeding or father/ daughter.. sound good to you? Something tells me it does.' What tells you I would like to think that my mutt was the offspring of incest? What a horrible personal slur. You really are not a very nice person are you to insinuate that someone might get some pleasure from thinking their dog was the result of incest. The fact though is we know you intentionally breed dogs like that. I've yet to find a purebreed that is not the result of incest. That is planned incest, which I think most would agree is totally different that accidental incest. So the fact is we know that, incest, 'sounds good to you'bestuvall. Pure breeding's foundation stone is incest.

bestuvall, it was not that long ago humans were considered property. A wife was property, a child was property and slaves were considered property. Back in the day they used the same argument you use now stop progress, 'It is GOOD for woman/child/slave to be property other wise what are they?' Thank goodness for progress.

LOL children are not dogs.. neither are woman although bitch is often used to describe women.. ( and men too) if dogs are not property then neither are cattle.. sheep.. goats.. chickens .. or even fish..so then the dilemma .. what to do?/ shall we stop having domestic animals.. that is what PETA/HSUS think because you cannot "have" them if you do not own them.. why should a sentient cow/sheep/chicken/fish give up their life for your sentient cat .or dog to eat..why should you provide food made from other sentient animals for your sentient animals. is your cats sentience more import than the fish in his/her food? anon: I care not what or who you breed ( either human or dog) makes not a wit of difference to me or to use your term .. I don't care who you "do" or your dogs "does'.. dogs cannot be the result of incest nor commit incest (look it up) as for "fucking" well I will just leave it at that.. dogs do not "fuck" they mate. ( you can look that up as well)

Isn't it funny how animal rights fanatics can't seem to discern the fundamental difference between animals and humans? Anonymous is still scratching his head because he can't figure out that HUMANS have the right to own animals as property but they don't have the right to own other humans. Sorry, "anonymous" but animals don't have rights. Animal rights is not "progress" in any sense of the word. Can I go eat my steak now, or oops does that mean the cow was enslaved? Then murdered!! How horrific! Ya see, "anonymous", "Murder" "rape" "incest" and other human crimes don't apply to animals. If they did....all the animals on the planet would soon have to go to jail.

Liberty Belle, I ain't scratching my head, I only just got back in from milking the cows and I'm just sitting down to have my bacon sandwich. Looking after farm animals that are for eating or producing food products better and more ethical has many benefits it gives the animal a better quality of life, so less likely to need over use of antibiotics and thus produces healthier better end product, fact. I could go into this further, but I do have a bacon sandwich to eat.Anynomous, is not scratching 'her' head. Love the fact that you assumed Anonymous must be a man and not eat meat. Eating meat does not mean an animal does not have rights. Sounds like you are the one who needs to scratch your head, trying to comprehend that someone who works in agriculture, happily eats meat could think that animals have rights. You might want to sit down. Yet again we have the two wrongs make a right scenario. Other animals kill each other and do awful things to each other, so that makes it okay for us to do bad shit to them and that makes it our right to not give them any rights. Do I really have to give a counter argument to such idiotic reasoning. "No."You are an animal Liberty Belle whether you like the fact or not. Exactly why do you think that you have the right to own an animal and that,that animal thus has no rights? Ain't something to do with that invisible friend who is very much up for rape, murder, stealing and torture, as long as it is done in his name.And bestuvall, yet again another sexual slur on me.Is that all you got, not going to actually give any valid counter argument to what I have said above, just personal attacks.As for Anonymous 21:49 no dogs are not humans, but they are an animal the same as you. You really did not get what I was saying. As for incest you are just splitting hairs and inferring the word incest can only mean people mating that are closely related, because the term incest is used as well for close relative breeding with other animals and plants, but pure breeders of dogs like to call it line breeding or at the worst inbreeding. Incest is rife in purebreeds. Would you like me to give references to articles by scientists about dog/animal breeding who call close relative breeding in dogs 'incest' and that animals 'commit incest'? The word 'fuck'is slang for 'having sexual intercourse' which is what dogs do when they mate. Mating is animals having sexual intercourse, but I guess you are going to say now that, "sexual intercourse is what only humans do, not animals, they just mate." LOL

Liberty Bell, if you own a dog, do you think that you should keep it fed, watered and provide it with a place to sleep and exercise?If you say, "Yes" to the question above you are agreeing that animals have rights. I think it is you struggling between what is a chair and what is an animal.Long time ago it was agreed animals have rights and now it is just working those rights out. Take one of your dogs in to a public place and start beating it, you will soon find out that your dog does have rights, whether you like it or not. You just don't what animals to have any rights when it comes to breeding them. I wonder why that is? Not a commercial pure breeder by any chance?

Nope, not even a breeder, "anonymous" much less a commercial one, although so what if I were? Animals don't have rights. Simply because there are now legal criminal offenses doesn't change that fact. Or do you believe your personal view of deference to pets should be imposed on countries where dogs are dinner? http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-animals-dont-have-rights.html

You don't actually listen to what you read , do you Liberty Belle you actually struggle with critical thought, when all you have to throw in the debate is that some people eat dogs. A legal criminal offense does qualify as a right. You cannot beat a dog, because the dog has a right not to be beaten. Why are you not allowed to beat a dog? Because like you they feel pain, stress and fear. It is a criminal offense to beat another human, because they have a right not to be beaten.I'm a meat eater, just like a dog and believe me if I was starving and it was me or the dog. I would eat my dog, but I would kill him/her as efficiently as I could, trying to cause the dog as little pain and stress. The dog has a right to be killed with as little suffering as possible. I have no problem with people in other countries eating dogs, but I have a problem when they are kept in such awful conditions and killed in barbaric ways.See Liberty Belle an animal can have rights and you can still eat them. Is it really that hard for you to comprehend? In America humans have rights, but you still love killing them, so I guess it would be hard for you to comprehend that animals have rights, especially as it has only been in recent history that you could comprehend a black person having the same rights as a white person. Blow yourself away replying Liberty Belle, I'm off to enjoy the holidays and I've spent enough time hitting my head against the brick wall with you. Have a lovely holiday!

One thing missing in this argument is the fact that with animals deemed property, it actually affords us rights against organizations like PETA and HSUS.Because a dog is property, when one of them decides they don't like how you're treating your dog, they can't just take it, and if they do, there are legal ramifications, such as what happened when PETA stole the chihuahua Maya.There ARE animal rights freaks that will steal your pet if they decide they don't like the way you care for it, even if you are not breaking the law. There is the recent case of the husky stolen from a man with terminal cancer by a neighbor who decided that he wasn't caring for the dog properly, even after animal control visited and determined that everything was fine.. That neighbor actually put the dog down, even though the dog has a medical condition that was being treated when she stole him.Because we have a right to our property, they cannot take our animals without due process. This means if you have your dogs tethered, animal control can't just decide that you're being cruel, and take your property.If your dog is killed by the police, which happens, you have a civil rights case against the department for denying you your property.Dogs as property doesn't mean they are not afforded certain rights as living beings and in fact, that is why we have animal cruelty laws. What it insures, again, is that due process takes place.If you are abusing your animal, they have have a warrant to take your property, they then have to have the courts deny you your property rights, based on the evidence. You have the right to fight them and present your own evidence that shows you are in compliance with the law.

Because our animals are legally property, we have certain rights that keeps them in check. This site better explains what the difference between being a guardian and being an owner is legally and why guardianship language is dangerous and problematic.. http://www.defendingdog.com/id29.htmlHJowever, these are the two most important paragraphs that explains it very well..

Unlike pet owners, pet guardians do not own the property that is the subject of the guardianship. At best, a guardian has a limited or temporary possession of the property. The guardianship right is bestowed by the government and can be arbitrarily revoked, meaning your pet can be taken from you without any rhyme or reason.

All property owners, however, enjoy rights, powers, privileges and immunities in the particular thing or things they own. Placerville Fruit Growers’ Association v. Irving. Animals are ethically and legally regarded as property and, as such, our rights as property owners are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

When appealing to readers in the old USofA, use their "Uncle Sam". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Sam. I started school at Earl Kitchener Public School in Hamilton, Ontario and live very close to Kitchener, Ontario which was renamed thus about 100 years ago as the name "New Berlin" was causing some angst.

Oops. I HAD read the article, back on Nov. 22 when I posted it to the FAKC.org Facebook page, but that line about gay marriage and marijuana had gotten lost in my memory bank.

Ironically, I have been bemoaning -- and writing about -- H$U$'s unfair advantage and AKC's disadvantage since 2010, and I got attacked by terrierman for doing so. Here is a link to my article on his blog:http://www.terrierman.com/H$U$%20ARTICLE%20SEP%202010%20AKC%20PERSPECTIVES%20ABRIDGED.pdf --- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

LOL. Well, perhaps Mr Kitchener needs to brush up on his writing. It is customary, when drawing a comparison, for it to be reflective of the point you're trying to make. I read his article as being anti-gay and anti-cannabis because he was citing it in connection with his fear of a cultural change that would be the death of purebred dogs - ergo a bad thing. Glad to hear that wasn't what he meant.

Because he is gay or engaged, does not exonerate the fact that he is using those as examples to hold up as look what can happen, when you don't think it will or should with the law, but it happens and uses this as a warning to what could happen with dog breeding. He thinks he is safe to use this argument because he is gay. If someone who was not gay wrote that, the gay community would be up in arms, but it means the same what he is saying in the article whether gay or not. He is trying to stir up the fear of change which is badly needed.

In any case and without judgement here there are enough over compensating confused men who love men around to take what he writes exactly as Jemima read it.

That he is in fact meant to be "engaged" to a man might also be a clue.......but it's neither here nor there nor is his sexuality as it's plain to see how he is trying to steer the argument. Appealing to the base instincts of fearing bigots, however in doing so abusing the hard earned basic human rights of his fellow Americans. Unless his supposed engagement is also a complete farce himself included.

A Libertine Republican who loves men (could be bestuvall at his best).

Given that Kitchener believes any opposition to bad breeding practises of pedigree dogs is "a political agenda for social change that seeks a world without purebred dogs" I guess also a very paranoid Libertine Republican who loves men.

His fear mongering doesn't stop at debasing his and his fellow Americans basic rights it goes on when he purposely misrepresents federal law to the same effect. “Federal law doesn’t care what kind of dog breeder you call yourself. If you have five females (and you ship a puppy just once) you’re a pet shop.” Elaine Hanson very kindly puts things straight on this for us, we learn the law in fact states "five intact females and ship a puppy make you a Commercial Breeder under federal law" not a petshop! In that case you must be apparently licensed by the USDA as a commercial breeder. The retail pet shops, and the breeders who sell all their puppies directly to the buyer and in person, are exempt from federal licensing (but may not be exempt from state and local regulation).

So instead we learn federal law doesn't in fact go far enough in protecting dogs. Not from the unscrupulous practises of puppy mills and pet-shops be they pedigree breeders or not but most importantly here also certainly not for one moment from pedigree dog breeders who specialise in qualzucht and are rewarded by the likes of the AKC. Does he care? Not for one moment.

Apparently a basic American right to cause suffering to animals!?

"All dog breeders have a right to breed dogs in the manner they choose to breed them."

"If they don’t have that right, then neither do you." He got that right at least. And anyone who thinks pet shop puppies aren't also coming from show breeders is completely delusional.

But it's his misrepresentation of the federal law to base his entire premise on that truly reeks, so what can be said for the rest of it....not much except Im absolutely sure the citizens of America have far less to fear from pot smokers than they do from a gun shot through the head.

IF the AKC and its show breeders were monitoring themselves, putting their own house in order they wouldn't be in danger of extinction along with their ailing dogs. They have no one to blame but themselves. This is the 21st Century the American people must grow up or it's government will do it for them! Im just surprised the likes of their very own president Obama haven't got involved. No doubt far too much else to be getting on with.

Very interesting. On the one hand, so-called animal rights groups like PETA and their ilk actually do want a world without domestic animals, as they consider domestication per se cruel; it seems they want only wild animals, and not animals living with humans at all. But of course, that is not the agenda of HSUS, nor is it the agenda of most people interested in animal welfare, including that of dogs and cats.

The problem with Kitchener's argument is that he holds up the purebred as an object worthy of conservation, like the naturally occurring species. But of course, it's not. When passenger pigeons, Carolina parakeets, and the dodo went extinct, this was tragic, as they were whole and unique species. But of course, breeds are not species; they are merely populations of species that have been shaped by artificial selection for some task or appearance, and are often (but not necessarily) genetically isolated. In the case of dogs, these are populations of domestic wolves. In the case of house cats, these are populations of domestic wildcats (common cats).

It would tragic if the gray wolf or the common cat (wild or domestic) went extinct. Sadly, wild populations of these species have been under threat from human activity for some time. Now, pure-breeding threatens domestic populations as well, via inbreeding depression and/or extreme phenotypes.

If Kitchener and his ilk really understood what dogs were, they would actually embrace outcrossing as something healthy and necessary for them. You can have diversity of dogs without inbreeding depression or freak shows. If that's what is stalling this debate - people talking past each other, with dog fanciers thinking that animal welfare proponents want to somehow get rid of dogs - then we can clear up the confusion rather easily. We need to make it clear that, while it's fine to have different types of dogs for different things, it's unethical to mess up their genetics or morphology so much that they are no longer healthy.

Partly this has to do with what people are used to (if you grow up with a certain type or breed of dog, you imprint on it, you may want that as an adult). But bottom line, I think this has more to do with control. Some people want to control every aspect of their domestic animals: their lineage, morphology, behavior, and training, and they want to win prizes for doing so. In contrast, others (like me) appreciate that living things are not objects to be manipulated. Rather, they are sentient beings with lives of their own, and while it's fine for them to change (intentionally or not) to some degree or other from their wild ancestors so that they mesh with people better, it's not okay to bend them so much that they break. Sorry, Kitchener, but that's really what this is all about.

There are plenty of purebreed dogs in the world, what exactly is Jay's point, is he really is a raving heterosexual trapped in a homosexuals body, who likes the occasional spliff, but hates himself after.

Oh yes, it is very much the agenda of HSUS. They are completely anti-pet, anti-zoo, anti-everything. They're just a "wolf in sheep's clothing", and not as obviously radical as PeTA.But they are made of the exact same stuff.

IMO zoos are sad horrible places the world over. If true I can only commend HSUS in this respect. To me the little value they do have simply doesn't offset the horrific confinment the animals are subjected to. From the so called best of them to the worst, zoos, ocean parks should be relagated to the dustbin of history.

Zoos are not the way children primarily should learn about the natural world. Even a walk through any decent city park is more soundly educational.

BTW - I noticed a lot of comments in that "Best in Show Daily" article are basically arguing that, "Dogs are our property, so we can do whatever we want with them."

Dogs may be property, but they're obviously not inanimate objects. It's not unethical to kick your own TV, but it is unethical to kick your own dog. That's called abuse, and it is, in fact, illegal. Whether cruel breeding practices should be illegal is an interesting topic (see qualzucht or "torture-breeding" laws in German-speaking countries). I think qualzucht is just as bad as physical abuse, so it should be illegal. But even if it's not, obviously animals are not simply property; they have feelings, and it is our duty not to make them suffer. Kitchener and his peanut gallery are obviously neglecting this fact.

why is our duty not to make them "suffer" if we are all equal and sentient? No one say"we can do water we want with" dogs or any animal.. We have laws regarding animal abuse.. but the HSUS etc thinks breeding on it face of any domestic animal is wrong.. granted this about farm animals but without them what wold dogs and cats eat“We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed…unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire [animal agriculture] industry.” – Vice President for farm animal issues Miyun Park, in a 2006 speech HSUS. so if you extrapolate.. nominee domestic farm animals..many fewer dog ( jus those fed on a vegan diet) and certainly no domestic cats“Don’t breed, don’t buy, don’t even accept giveaways.” – CEO John Hoyt, in a 1991 speech COE HSUSThe leopard has not changed its spots.. only put on a different coat

Actually, I think there's a huge difference between wanting the world to be vegetarian and not wanting any dogs, so methinks you extrapolate too much. Vegetarian dogs? Does HSUS want to rid the world of tigers, too, perhaps because they eat meat?

As for John Hoyt's 1991 quote; it would be good to see the context. Hoyt gave up the presidency of HSUS over 20 years ago and died in 2012. To judge, we need to know what HSUS thinks now.

NB: I am not an HSUS apologist. I have no time for them on the purebred dogs issue - not since I asked them direct if the science showed that it was better for some individual dogs to not neuter dogs would they stop advocating neutering everything. Their answer was that that would be very difficult for them politically.

Re: vegetarian dogs and HSUS: In his younger days, HSUS CEO Pacelle bragged that he and his roommate were working on converting their Cat to veganism. Animal cruelty at it's finest, forcing an obligate carnivore to eat an unnatural and dangerous diet. He has also said , "in my view , I'd wish to never see another dog or cat born."

You write: "The view from here is that while HSUS is clever and sneaky in its efforts to secure local ordinances that impact negatively on some good dog breeders, it is not the bogeyman the purebred fancy thinks it is and it does not want 'all dogs gone'". --- I totally disagree with that. The ultimate goal of H$U$ is to end any human control over animals. Whatever it may do which appears honorable nevertheless is aimed to reach that goal. --- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

I have a very close-up of HSUS, which I'm generally a supporter of. My background: decades of competing in a dozen dog sports with purebreds from both sports breeders and shelters, former shelter volunteer and fundraiser, dog behavior consultant, aggression expert, expert witness in court; now a big victim advocate for victims of pit bull attacks. My day job has nothing to do with any of this--I work in biotech.

I was invited to a city steering committee for new city dog ordinances, particularly dangerous dog ordinances. The other 15 were from the local big-money shelter (vets, director, etc), spay/neuter clinics, and an HSUS lawyer. Besides me, the alder and Animal Control (all on my side), everybody else was opposed to everything we proposed as a solution to the dog problems in our city. Specifically, HSUS (and all the others except as mentioned) was OPPOSED to:

Requirements to spay/neuter dogs that had seriously attacked another pet or person, and particularly to dogs that had legally been declared dangerous (generally after ripping a limb off a person or pet--there is a very high bar).

Requirements to spay/neuter dogs where the owner was actively breeding dogs and had been convicted of animal abuse, neglect, abandonment, dog fighting, etc.

Requirements to spay/neuter dogs that had been caught running at large 3 times.

Requirements for owners to purchase a very inexpensive license in order to breed a litter of puppies within city limits ($30 or so--which would go towards inspections and owner education for people buying a lot of licenses).

Once I saw how shelters and the HSUS fought this stuff tooth and nail (and remember, I'm PRO-good-breeder and intend to breed dogs on a very small scale in the future)... I realized that you have to follow the money trail. They WANT pet overpopulation. That's how they make a living. The local shelter is basically a pet reseller. They bring in dogs from other states (we don't have any overpopulation problem here), then sell them--oops "adopt them out"--for up to $450 each. The shelter here has millions in funding, which would quickly dry out if there were not intact dogs out there in the world producing puppies and dogs for them to resell.

I used to be a fundraiser and one-full-day-a-week shelter volunteer, but I've now become very anti-shelter, anti-big-name-rescue (like Best Friends, in Utah, USA). I am happy to support small local rescues, but no more of the rescues that are actually out there advocating for MORE pet overpopulation so they can all hold onto their jobs...

Jemima, from what I understood talking to the otherwise very nice, civil HSUS attorney that was at these meetings, the HSUS always opposes spay/neuter legislation. However, they are on the bandwagon for only adopting out spayed/neutered pets--this keeps people from questioning their motives too much.

Along with the shelter reps and subsidized spay/neuter clinic reps, they had a variety of lame excuses for not wanting for-cause spay/neuter ordinances, such as:

"it's not enforceable"

"people not already neutering their pets can't afford it--you can't force poor people to spend the $20 that the subsidized spay/neuter program here charges. That's discriminatory against poor people." (My own reaction is if somebody can't spare a one-time $20, they certainly can't afford to provide for a pet, much less a pregnant or nursing pet).

"it will probably only be enforced against pit bulls--and that's racist!"

"we don't have a pet overpopulation problem. We just need to improve shelter marketing!" (as per Nathan Winograd--the no-kill shelter champion in the USA who believes in crating aggressive dogs for years and adopting them out rather than humanely euthanizing them.)

Anonymous 21:56, you happily euthanize humans in the USA and call it the death penalty. Law has no problem in the USA making the choice to kill humans that are not classified as property, which means you don't have to own or something in the eyes of the law to kill.

S.K.Y.- that sounds made-up about Nathan Winograd. Have you a source? I have read him saying exactly the opposite. I've read sources from the likes of Peta saying that's what No-Kill means, but they aren't exactly the most believable source on this.

Instead the sources from his website I've read say that dogs are often misidentified as 'aggressive' when they could be safely rehomed or may be suffering from medical problems, and that far from encouraging dogs to be 'crated for years', not enough is done on training, rehabilitation, treatment (this is from the 'defining no kill' download from the No Kill Advocacy Centre. He seems to advocate MORE training, MORE careful evaluation, not less.

Yes, the subject of crating.....it's always bound to come up. In my opinion it's the most horribly abused area of dog "care" and ownership in the world and I would'nt be at all upset if the practise were banned for ever.

Crating apologists are everywhere they know no social boundries, sphere of dog activity and ownership. Like a cancer it eats into the happiness and welfare of dogs evrywhere.

There's a big difference between no domestic, esp. purebred animals any more (PETA) and no selling puppies in pet shops (animal welfare and rescue groups). Virtually ALL pups sold in pet stores come from big, commercial breeding facilities, aka puppy mills. I think most people can agree that puppy mills are bad and breeders who are willing to sell pups to folks they don't even know via pet shops (which really take advantage of impulse buyers) are unscrupulous. I get that HSUS and other rescue organizations often make breeders out to be the bad guys, but their focus really seems to be on the worst offenders - the puppy mills. So I guess the author really just wants those registration fees to keep flowing from puppy mills, and that is really sad. I think what the AKC has to worry about is their own ignorance in the face of sound science.

There are no stray dogs in my country, Finland. They are so scarce in fact that people in here get rescue dogs imported.We also have no commercial puppy mills and it is illegal to sell cats and dogs in pet shops. I think there is a strong correlation here.

I have bestuvall, as my sister used to be on the list for a couple rescue charities to help with transportation of rescued horses. She has a horse transport business. We entered one of these facilities once, as we were picking up the rescued horses and it was surreal experience, row after row of cages, dogs pleading, dogs frightened to death. The stench was horrific.I have also visited a commercial breeders establishment as a potential employee. The only difference was it was clean and the dogs needs such as food, water and a place to sleep were okay, but the dogs were just like the rescue we got called to in temperament, nervous and not properly socialized. How can you have forty to a hundred adult dogs and give them proper socialization. If you employed the staff needed to do the job properly, there would be no money in it.

I have not been to what I would consider a commercial breeder facility, no. However, my first job I worked at a breeder's kennel and at times I questioned the breeder's intentions. She'd have three to four litters of pups on the ground at a time.

I've been hearing and reading this Chicken Little "the sky is falling on purebred dogs" business for well over a decade from the dog show people. The motivation is always to incite owners and breeders of purebred dog who give no shrift to the kennel club show culture (yes, Virginia, there really are breeders of working and sporting purebred dogs who don't breed exaggerated, health train wrecks of their breeds) to make common cause with the show crowd against the animal rights boogeymen out there, HSUS among them. To which, as a breeder of sporting Greyhounds, I say no thanks, show folks. That said, make no mistake that HSUS is a serious enemy of purebred dogs, including working and sporting dogs who will never step paw in a show ring. It would end foxhunting, which would result in the demise of the Foxhound; it would ban Greyhound racing and coursing, which would effectively bring an end to the Greyhound; rabbit hunting, which would eliminate the working versions of the Beagle and Basset Hound. And so on and so forth. Is that a reason to make common cause with the kennel club show culture ? Not on your life. Thanks, but we'll fight the HSUS and its radical animal rights (not animal welfare)agenda on our own rather than get in bed with the show folks.

Greyhound racing is illegal where I live and it has certainly not ended the breed!In fact, racing dogs is a very big, and lively sport in here. It is illegal to make money off of it, but it is perfectly fine to have as a hobby. It would certainly do some good to ban the sport in it's current form in other countries, too. I have only seen the ban do good in here, since like I already said, it is still good as a hobby.

so it is illegal but you still do it anon? geez as for fighting the HSUS "on your own" good luck with that.. a greyhound is a greyhound sport or show HSUS et all does not care they could care less if you race them, hunt with them, show them or course with them. They will take you down one sport at a time.. they what to see all of it come to a halt and they love to see statements like yours "on our own" because they know they will defeat you .. every single time until you have NO greys left for anything.. When they banned hunting bear and bobcat in CA HUNDREDS of people showed up ( myself included) why.. because they love their dogs.. and many of them actually do make money through their hunting businesses. Plotts, Black and Tans, Treeing Walkers, Beagles etc all came with their owners. I was there to prove the point that none of these dogs would be needed in the future to do their jobs if hunting were outlawed.. HSUS breezed and boom law passed.. So the AKC took some of those breeds in.. so now people have reason to keep these breeds even if they cannot use them for their original purpose.. I do not know what you do with a sporting greyhound.. race it adjacent others.. course on live prey .. or drag course.. but no matter what HSUS et all wants You to stop doing it.. they could ca less if you have a purebred Greyhound.. won't a "Greypoo" do until they can get rid of all carnivorous domestic animals.? We must all hang together or we will most certainly hang separately" apologies to Mr. Franklin

Anonymous, what is the breeding population/size of the gene pool of this amateur Greyhound racing population ? What percentage of the Greyhounds or their near ancestors were bred for professional racing ? Professional racing, along with coursing (which also involves purse money and wagering), is precisely what keeps the Greyhound population genetically diverse, at a high level of athletic excellence, and healthy. Is it your contention that if Greyhounds were bred only for amateur racing, that those assets of the breed would continue ? On what evidence, other than where you live, do you base that contention. Those of us who love the Greyhound breed want it to thrive, not merely survive.

Bestuvall, California is such a nanny state, whose legislature never met a regulation or prohibition it didn't like, that HSUS could get tiddlywinks banned if it tried hard enough (somebody might poke their eye out with the game pieces, etc). Hardly representative of most of the other states, in which hunting with dogs is alive and well. In my home state of Georgia, our state constitution provides for a constitutional right to hunt. So I'm afraid your domino theory doesn't have much evidence to support it in real life -- it exists mostly in the Flat Earth Society minds of the show breeders. The kennel club show culture is a dog with fleas, and when you get in bed with it . . . . you get fleas. No thanks.

nanny or no ( and i agree) only 11 states allow hunting deer with hounds 14 states have outlawed hunting bear/bobcat/ with hounds.. here is what Pacelle of the HSUS has to say: "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. Wayne Pacelle nd for those of you in the UK: “The entire animal rights movement in the United States reacted with unfettered glee at the Ban in England ...We view this act of parliament as one of the most important actions in the history of the animal rights movement. This will energise our efforts to stop hunting with hounds.” Wayne Pacelle, CEO, Humane Society of the US (HSUS), London Times, December 26, 2004 -

John, you are the problem. Ever heard the saying "United we stand divided we fall"??? They are implementing a divide and conquer tactic and you are falling for it hook line & sinker. Even the people on here including Jemima are falling for it. Then again Jemima & cohorts want to see all purebred dogs mixed bred into oblivion, no more purebred dogs. No more Grey Hounds, no more Dachshunds, no more Poodles, no Pharaoh Hounds, no Afghan Hounds, no whatever Pure breed.

Trish, that is not what Jemima and her cohorts want, but it is what you want people to believe. It is about stopping exaggerations being bred in to dogs that cause them to suffer and to stop having such small closed off gene pools that the cause so much risk off inherited disorders. No one seemed to mind it when the KC got rid of a whole load of Spaniel breeds and made one breed the Cocker Spaniel and many breeds have dead a death and are dying a death under the so called protection of the KC and AKC. HOw can you be united with people who think pure breeding is the be all and end of it. I started cross breeding several years ago, to improve the really poor health in a pure breed I have been involved with for over 30 years. I was open about it and why I had chosen to do it and I was then ostracized from the breed club. My dogs look like the breed, talk like the breed, walk like the breed. They are healthier, less exaggerated and more functional than the breed. My dogs by the breed club are referred to as mutts when discussed by them, so go and sling your hook with the 'United we stand, decided we fall' fear building bullshit.John is not the problem here, you are.

Ark at you Trish with your hate and fear speech. Duh, purebreeds can be made and unmade. They are just something made up by humans. The whole purebreed ideology is 'conquer and divide', especially when used against humans. They will always still be pure dogs though, whatever the dogs parents looked like.

" while HSUS is clever and sneaky in its efforts to secure local ordinances that impact negatively on some good dog breeders..." sure does not show that the best interest of dogs is at the root of the effort at all. When anyone is "clever and sneaky to move ordinances that negatively impact a single good dog breeder, the effort is a sham that uses the emotions of people against them and nothing more.

The comments here that use ad hominem attacks and name calling are a perfect illustration of what is inherently wrong with this method. You don't need name calling, vilification and sneaky tactics if you have an honest campaign based on actual science rather than hocus pocus "feelings".

Honestly I don't see the HSUS as anything more than a guilt ridden, money collecting outfit that goes hand in hand with PETA. However I agree with all your other viewpoints from where you stand.

What on earth does gay marriage and marijuana have to DO with it? Each of those is its own issue. I have huge problems with people or groups that contend that you are obligated to have a package set of values. That is already limited thinking right there.

The kind of limited thinking that will keep purebred dogs in the inbred state, sending them on a downward glide.

You don't need the AKC OR HSUS to breed with purpose and health in mind.

There are a ton of purposes that dogs served in the past that are no longer considered ethical by the majority of people, and have been rightfully outlawed.

Pit bulls and other bully breeds have been bred for 500 years (up to today) almost exclusively to maul other animals to death. In the USA, a pit bull had to win three dog fights in order to be registered, all the way up to the 1950's. Are you saying dog vs. dog or dog vs. bear fighting should remain legal to keep good fightin' pits in the gene pool?

I had the #1 Parson Russell Terrier / Jack Russell Terrier in the USA for conformation, ranked #1 or #2 in the nation (and later, in the UK) for other sports, a natural-hunter-in-the-field, with more titles than any other PRT in the world at that time. He was an award-winning therapy dog that would put up with any sort of handling. He would go to ground at the drop of a hat and killed over 200 animals in his life, almost all while on leash or in a fenced yard. I neutered him without ever breeding him. Yes, he was doing the historical purpose of the breed... but 99.99999% of dog owners in the world do NOT need a dog that will run off across the horizon to kill cats, raccoons, snakes, birds, moles, chipmunks or anything else moving. Do we really need indiscriminate wildlife and cat killers living in the suburbs? On a farm? I did my part to NOT perpetuate any more cat and wildlife deaths by not breeding him.

I've had 3 Border Collies, and herded sheep & cattle at an advanced level with them. This is another breed that I would like to see GREATLY reduced in numbers, with just a few left in working situations. The typical family, and even the typical obedience/agility competitor, does not need a dog that must work hours a day or go nuts. I lived in the city for most of the time with mine, and spent thousands of dollars renting sheep, driving hours to get to sheep,etc.

I now have a Papillon that is too big for the show ring, but I'll breed him for his excellent health, spectacular temperament, love of all living things, biddability and marvelous qualities as a PET (and multi-sport competition dog and occasional circus performer). Unlike working dogs I've owned, nothing about his breed is maladaptive to living in 21st century society. He does not want to kill people or pets, chase moving objects, scale fences, eat through walls, or run off following a scent. He is an avid tugger and frisbee fanatic, great lap dog, hiker, and does virtually anything that a pet owner would dream of in a dog... without the maladaptive bits.

Certainly there are places for working dogs today. For instance, scenting dogs are useful in many activities such as airport security, tracking endangered wildlife, etc. There is still a need for working stockdogs.

Outside of that, city dogs now have acceptable replacements for "sports" now viewed as unethical. Pit bulls can do competitive weight pull or tire hanging. Greyhounds can lure-course as a hobby rather than professionally. Terriers can do barn hunt or earthdog competitions in which no quarry is harmed. Yes, we may lose some of the great genes for these watered-down activities. But how many thousands of years are we supposed to keep driving out to the countryside so our pet BCs can work sheep... when very few people farm today? (Especially in the USA, where I had to drive up to 3 hours one way to work sheep).

When you have an organization that promotes the ideal that dogs are only bred within that that org. You are going to end up with a diminishing Org.

The K.Cs can't blame any but their own rules protocols for their perceived victimization, or loss of value for the species.

Take a species that was developed through breeding for its suitability and value in our own back yards, and tell people breeding in your own backyards is wrong and unethical? The expression of values tested and proved in your own back yards is going to suffer.

The many different purposes dogs have historicaly been bred for will suffer.

I've heard the argument that good breeders approach the task almost as a religion.

Well, If you put your religion above humanity, humanity will suffer.The organization serves humanity, not the other way around because with out humanity, there is no religion.

Ditto with pedigree dogs. You put the pedigree above the species, the species will suffer and the org. that should serve the species only contributes to its fall.

You rule against the environment that sustains you, it will cease to do so.

SKY,Are you sure we need to GREATLY reduce the number of Border Collies in the USA or is your experience living in urban areas skewing your perception? I estimate there are 100-500 head of livestock per Border Collie in the USA: inventory of cows and sheep divided by the number of annual ABCA registrations * 10 years (typically working lifetime).

Your other fallacy is that Border Collies NEED to work livestock (your 3hr drive); they don't. They just need MENTAL exercise more than the typical pet owner is willing to provide. There is a misconception among many pet owners in the USA that their dogs from working breeds must be allowed to experience what the breed was developed for in order to have a fulfilled life.

I wonder just how much worry everyone should be placing on the AKC since its registrations account for <35% of the pups born in the USA (2008-2014).

PipedreamFarm, the vast majority of stock in America is in a factory farming situation. Only an extremely tiny minority is in a traditional farming situation and is worked by stockdogs. I competed in AKC, USBCHA, AHBA and "time & points" cattle trials. Even at the USBCHA trials, an increasing number of competitors do not own or work stock. They got into herding because they bought a BC and wanted to fulfill the dog's genetic destiny (or it was driving them crazy at home).

I have lived in urban areas, but also owned 10 acres in Missouri (no sheep, but I did have ducks for puppies to practice with). Many of my neighbors had pet sheep, but none of them wanted a dog to work their pets. So I had to drive many hours to find people who both competed AND owned non-pet sheep that I could work. And this was in rural Missouri, probably the #2 state (after California) for producing top USBCHA competition dogs.

My BCs have earned titles in 8 sports, not only herding... so I do know that they will do other things well too. However, my experience is that BCs that do not work sheep regularly tend to be frantic and have a lot of OCD type issues.

Before I ever owned a BC, I lived in the UK for 2 years and visited Derek Scrimgeour's farm. (Internationally famous sheepherding competitor and author). At that time, I had decades of experience in agility and obedience, but very little stockdog experience. I mentioned that I would like to get a BC in the near future for those sports. He said outright not to come to him--that BCs were only for working farms and did not belong anywhere else. There were plenty of other breeds that could do agility & obedience.

I initially wrote this off as fanaticism, but the more I am around BCs that do not herd sheep, but only do agility & obedience, the more I agree with him. There is a HUGE difference in the amount of mental and physical exercise a daily-working stockdog gets compared to a dog taking a 1-hour group agility/obedience class who competes a couple of minutes on weekends. I see BCs at agility competitions every weekend who are barking, lunging, jumping-on-people, and displaying frantic OCD behaviors. The same dog on a farm would have learned calm workmanship and would have enough exercise to appreciate the chance for a nap. My dogs did both, and showed their good stockdog manners in every sport. However, I don't see a need for Border Collies to be bred as pets in any way (all respect to my sister, who adopted an extremely calm 6 year old BC from a rescue). There are dogs that do everything BCs do, without the frantic OCD personalities and common fear issues that are related to being bred to respond to a raised crook at 200 yards.

We definitely need working BCs. However, I believe the ABCA registers something like 20,000 of them a year, and I do not think there are 200,000 BCs needed on working farms in the U.S. (using your calculation of a 10 year working life).

I guess our perspectives on how many Border Collies are needed for working livestock will continue to differ. You should look into where the feeder calves come from that are raised ("finished") on feed lots.

Since you provided some background info on your experiences with these dogs I will provide mine. We have a small commercial flock of 90 adult sheep; we typically lamb out 75 ewes each year. One of my dogs (bred, trained, compete) is currently ranked in the top 20 of the USBCHA. Her 12.5year old mother likely has enough points for 2016 finals.

Based upon my experience (coming from a pet owner to a flock owner) I'll bet you'll find that in order to excel at USBCHA (or ISDS) trialing you need to own livestock (because it's about managing livestock not the dogs).

I also suspect you are exposed to more non-working bred dogs and ones that really are not getting enough mental exercise (as opposed to high energy simulation). Like many working breeds, if you do not select breeding dogs using the function for which the breed was developed you do not know if you are mating ones with poor or improper sets of instincts (unbalanced temperaments).

I left a reasoned comment below Kitchener's article that is critical of the kennel clubs, but "Best in Show" used its moderator authority to censor me. This is what we're dealing with: power trippers who want to silence the opposition.

I have been avoiding reading or commenting here lately as the stench of Animal Wrongism is thick and heavy on this blog. But I had to pop in as my wonderful friend Jay Kitchener received a mention. Jay has spent many years on the front lines of opposition to Animal Wrongists. Contrary to the dangerous drivel spewed by the hypocrites at HSUS and PETA....whose leader have openly opined that the world would be better if there was no such concept as pet ownership....Jay actually makes a beneficial contribution to society by defending dog owners rights to care for their animals as they see fit. He not only defends purebred dog owners rights to breed in the manner they choose, he defends crossbreeders who sell pets, working dog breeders who may choose to crossbreed, hunters who "use" dogs for purposes opposed by anima rights ghroups, and the average joe who wants the joy of allowing their famly pet to have a litter for any reason. So before you malign one of the finest men on this earth, you need to stop and consider....who will speak for you when the animal rights fanatics show up at your door to take your dogs away from you?

"Jay actually makes a beneficial contribution to society by defending dog owners rights to care for their animals as they see fit."

And if that is harming them? Do dog owners' rights to care for their animal as they see fit extend to them being allowed to house them in sub-standard conditions or to breed them so they cannot breathe well or to beat them with a stick?

Who determines substandard conditions? You? Some government hack who has never even owned a dog?We already have plenty of animal welfare regulations in place. Too many. Starving, beating and other forms of physical cruelty have been outlawed for a long time now.I'm proud to work with people who selflessly give of their time and effort to promote human rights. And yes I'll repeated again, including the right to keep and read our animals as we see fit. A dead dog can't work, and beating animals with a stick is not going to produce a dog that will have happy healthy puppies or make a decent companion. There are very very few people who behave in this manner. Most dog people I know are kind-hearted. I'm truly sorry for you if you only see evil and abuse everywhere you look.

And still didn't answer my question. Who do you think will speak for you when PETA, HSUS, and other extremists decide that you shouldn't go hunting, or breed your dog because, as PETA's founder Ingrid has said, "In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether" and "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." And of course Wayne Pacelle of HSUS has admitted that he "doesn't want to see another dog or cat born." So, who is going to speak for you and your dogs some day? Yes, people have the right to do as they deem fit with their animals, whether that means breeding them or simply enjoying them as pets.

Can you answer the question fully Liberty Belle, come on, you are all for calling Jemima out for not answering questions. Do you think people should be allowed to house them in sub-standard conditions or to breed them so they cannot breathe well? You do come over as a bit of a hypocrite telling Jemima,"Who determines substandard conditions? You? and then go on to give us no doubt that it is Jay and you who should be telling us all how to keep are dogs, 'as we see fit.'

Again, anonymous, I've already responded that welfare standards exist that are more than sufficient to prevent cruelty to animals. Any further restrictions would have to be based on subjective criteria that most people cannot agree on. There is a lot to be said for having the freedom of choice in animal husbandry so that people can cross breed, breed for pets, or even be able to create a new breed if they want to do so. It's telling that 70% of dogs in England are purebred. Why is that? Are people so limited in what they can can and can't breed that all they are allowed to breed is purebred dogs? it seems like all these so-called welfare laws are not benefiting dogs in your country at all. In the US, we are free to crossbreed or determine our own goals for breeding rather than allowing the state to do that for us. I believe that individual should have the freedom to determine their own goals and methods of breeding without becoming mindless drones of the state. Liberty and free enterprise produce superior end results to any type of Government restricted system.

No, no, no no, you have not answered the question, it 'Do you think people should be allowed to house them in sub-standard conditions or to breed them so they cannot breathe well?' A simple yes or no will do.The rest of your drivel is not worth answering, as it is obvious you have no knowledge of laws in the England. There are no laws prohibiting what you want to breed a dog to or how they look. You sound like Donald Trump, who thinks we are apparently over run by Islam in the UK as well. What you don't know you make up. 70% of dogs purebreeds has more to do with the KC being a bit more progressive and has better marketing than the AKC.Look at what your freedom has done to dogs, we have brachy dogs, that have to have surgery so they can breath, I could go on. Open your eyes to your so called freedom, the imprisonment of another species in disfigured forms called, breed standards and kept in massive breeding facilities with little socialization.

Those of us who actually use dogs for which the breeds were developed will continue to speak out; we don't need conformation breeders (who don't even work the dogs) defending our use of dogs for which they were developed.

I think dogs (indeed any animal over which we have domain) should be bred, born and raised well. Do they have a *right* to that? Yes, I think so - with a small "r" at least. I certainly do not think people have the right to do anything they want with them. Allowing people to breed dogs the way they want has manifestly caused harm in some instances, and despite a lot of effort going into to education/encouraging change, I think there probably does come a point where the law has to step in. It already has in Austria, for instance, which has outlawed what it calls qualzucht (torture breeding), and there are other EU countries where it is increasingly difficult to sell a defective dog without some legal comeback.

I think all that while eating meat and going shooting with my Flatcoat.

Here in the UK, the madder tenets of PETA/Pacelle have no purchase . I can still run my dogs off-lead (as long as under control) in most of the country. I can still own and keep (as I do currently) eight dogs. If anyone here said they thought dog-ownership was slavery, people would laugh.

In Sweden/Finland, you can't sell dogs in pet-shops - and yet hunting is a huge part of Scandanavian life.

What I'm saying is that in countries other than the fruit-loop USA (and in all honesty I don't think there, either), it is not the case that eg banning pet-shop sales is the start of a slippery slide to the banning of dog-ownership. And I think it is a logical fallacy to try and argue that.

Introducing higher welfare for farm animal production - eg the banning of sow-stalls and veal crates here - has not led to an increase in vegetarianism; it has led to an increase in popularity of those two meats now there are higher welfare-standards. Indeed, I used to be vegetarian and now am not. Banning ear-cropping (over a 100 years ago in the UK) and more recently tail-docking has not meant handing the canine reins over to extremists; it just means we have dogs with happy, flappy ears and tails.

I don't often praise the UK Kennel Club but they are *night and day* ahead of the AKC in terms of acknowledging that something needed to be done to tackle health and welfare in purebred dogs.

That is the result of the spotlight being shone on them here. The UK Kennel club (eventually) understood that it could not continue as it was - and also, in particular, that legislation is normally the consequence when people don't voluntarily put their houses in order. That spotlight is increasingly on the AKC and breeders in the US, too.

They would be wise to take notice rather than screaming that they have the right to do anything they want to and with their dogs - and that the UK Kennel Club has been over-run by animal rightsists.

"If anyone here said they thought dog-ownership was slavery, people would laugh." 'Anyone from there' DOES say that animal ownership is slavery. Aren't you aware that PETA's Ingrid Newkirk is British? Born and raised in Surrey. SHAK and SPEAC are quite radical....based in your country. Many many other groups as well. Even the RSPCA, and their counterpart in the US, the ASPCA, are less concerned with "welfare" than with "Rights." Capital R. Forcing people to treat dogs as little humans in fur coats. We already have "puppy lemon laws" in California and have for a long time. Many other states do as well. It's extremely cost-prohibitive to be a breeder. So no one who sells a "defective" dog as you put it can benefit as they are liable for medical bills of the purchaser. This provision appplies to breeders and pet shops, but all the "rescued" purebred puppies that are being miraculously found on the streets of Turkey, Romania and Taiwan and imported for sale into the US....those are exempt from any health warrantee for the purchaser. In fact, these fashionable impored "rescues" have brought rabies and parvo and screwworm into the US. Tell me again about how bad pet shop puppies are when those breeders are publicly known and scrutinized, and the dogs are so healthy that pet insurance companies give them discounted rates? It's nonsense to denigrate pet shops asd a source for well-bred puppies.Those closest to the problem usually can't see it. There is absolutely NO welfare issue involved with selling dogs in pet stores, or with cropping ears or docking tails. Gestation stalls are designed to prevent deaths of piglets. Veal is not common now....as I live in a dairy town I know that heifers are kept but calves are generally killed soon after birth and processed into lunchmeat and hot dogs now that veal is considered a politically incorrect food. Is it better to be dead than have a short life? It's a point of debate. AKC has fewer and fewer registrations every year, so you needn't worry about coercing them into changing their habits.....few people in the US worry about whether or not their dogs is AKC registered, although maybe they should. I believe that breeders who are free to determine their own destiny and that of their dogs have always been the brightest hope for the future. But animal rightists and the Kennel Clubs they successfully bully will spell the end of that hope. In point of fact, most genuine incidents of animal abuse occur with people who become old, ill, financially destitute or too mentally imbalanced to see that they are in over their heads and unable to care for the animals they have. Many are rescuers! Comparing relatively harmless cosmetic surgical procedures like crop and dock to neglect and starvation or "beating with a stick" is really myopic. Personally I am more concerned with people who have fallen on hard times when these abuse incidents occur. It's odd that there are so many humans who don't care for each other as much as they care for animals. Not only don't care, but will call for heads on a stick without even knowing the circumstances!Just because you shoot with your flatcoat doesn't mean that your grandchildren will enjoy the same opportunity to do so.

Sorry, but I have never cropped or docked not owned a dog that had those procedures done. You are wrong yet again.I will, however, fight to defend an owner's right to elect for cosmetic surgery for whatever reason they see fit. There is absolutely no evidence that such procedures are harmful. Again, you pick one item out of a long list of concerns to feebly attempt to rebut....guess you can't refute anything else I've said. Buh bye! This site is not worth dignifying with comments.

Sensations of freedom...chopping off dogs ears, shooting bobcats and each other.

I think what's needed is a weeny Clinton fund raiser. Just a teensy help to shove things forward. Wont help the debt crisis but what the heck no one seems to care that it's the single greatest fundamental threat to Americas liberty and their grandchildren's future. As long as it doesn't interfere with the notion, the abstract notion of freedom, liberty, everything is a bed of roses.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, you advocate for supporting the party that is responsible for amassing almost half of that debt in just the last seven years? I'm sorry you need to have legal, societal limits to restrict your malicious urges. Most of us don't. That was a pretty frightening glimpse into your soul right there!

Liberty Belle better than trying to exonerate President Bush Junior as the war criminal he is. I have read some of your blogs. I think River P was winding you up and you took the bait hook line and sinker.

Most of us do in fact it's just American, and I can safely now add American Republican gun lobbyists who think otherwise. Those "malicious urges" of yours seem to be having something of a free reign to be acted upon, almost a weekly occurrence across the Atlantic. No? No doubt just time and some budding entrepreneur will turn it professional and demand the TV rights.

We in the developed world on the other hand pretty much all think you are completely out to lunch Liberty Belle.

When we realise America is actually founded on cognitive dissonance it's not difficult to see why. Who do you think was the rabble that put together your Declaration of Independence a mere 233 years ago? None other than and I quote " the rankest of hypocrites" the owners and drivers of slaves. The very people screaming freedom, liberty!

You're still screaming in your cognitive dissonance and blacks are still being shot.

All things considered maybe it in fact would've been better if you as a nation were still a British colony?

Hmmm? The tax you lot so objected to paying the very same monarchy you're now so obsessed with would be highly appropriate. Call it "The Stupidity Tax" if you like. At least dogs wouldn't be having their ears ripped off and tails broken in half or otherwise removed and maimed in the manner the owner sees fit. You would also by now of course know how to make a proper scone and say the h in herb......trifling matters compared.

For the rest it's pretty much equal in who contributed more to American Debt. So taking that as a starting point it's also pretty much clear what we should be supporting. At the very least you should strive for some degree of cognitive consonance, because otherwise everything you believe in is seen as complete "garbage" and by everyone other than yourself.

You in the "developed world" practiced slavery, from Roman time with chattel slavery, to feudalism and serfdom. British merchants bought slaves from African Arab conquerors and transported white captives from the British Isles and sold them into indentured servitude. "Pretty much equal" as to the debt? That's bullshit. Almost half the debt has amassed in the last seven years....the other half over many past prior decades. The debt is due to liberals on steroids as they had free reign for much of the Obama reign.

Oops almost missed your cheap shot at pet store dogs. Dogs store puppies have proven to be healthier than dogs obtained from any other source, and commercial breeders are licensed and inspected by the federal government. So there, yeah, I said it myself. Good for me, and goodbye to the stench of animal rightism.

Can you tell us where we can find the prove to your claim that 'Dogs store puppies have proven to be healthier than dogs obtained from any other source' Don't forget you are claiming 'any other source' which is a big claim to front out.The licensing and inspecting of commercial breeders is a joke and you should know that.

And why am I not surprised that you start crying, ad hominem attack' because you are not guilty of personally attacking anyone on here, are you? You call people, 'Animal rights fanatic' and accuse people of being on an 'elitist high horse' to just site a couple examples, when you know nothing about them, that is ad hominem attacks and that makes you a hypocrite accusing anyone of doing that, when you do it yourself.Must be so undignifying for you to keep coming back here when, 'This site is not worth dignifying with comments.' Yet another xample of an ad hominem attack from your keyboard. LOL

Liberty Belle, I have looked at your replies on here and it seems you are only to happy to have a default setting of ad hominem attack if you have no other defense. Now you deflect, please answer the question, 'Can you tell us where we can find the prove to your claim that 'Dogs store puppies have proven to be healthier than dogs obtained from any other source'

Thanks for those links PipedreamFarm I found this bit interesting 'AbstractJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders.Results—Pet store–derived dogs received significantly less favorable scores than did breeder-obtained dogs on 12 of 14 of the behavioral variables measured; pet store dogs did not score more favorably than breeder dogs in any behavioral category. Compared with dogs obtained as puppies from noncommercial breeders, dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores had significantly greater aggression toward human family members, unfamiliar people, and other dogs; greater fear of other dogs and nonsocial stimuli; and greater separation-related problems and house soiling.'

No it is not. I want figures and research not the fact that an insurance company just dropped its premiums because you are able to provide such high volumes of customers for them. If you buy a puppy from a pet store and then go and insure it independently you will not be offered a lower premiums. Pet stores get offered lower premiums because of the volume they can provide insurance companies, it has nothing to do with better health.Please try again.

Have eyes but cannot see. What about that famous study in Sweden based on insured dogs that supports the better health of crossbreds? I don't see anybody questioning its validity. As well they shouldn't.

So I take it that you have no more prove than special offers made to pet store pups if you carry on with the insurance the pup leaves the store with Liberty Belle and yet again you deflect. We are not talking about studies in Sweden about crossbreeds, we are talking about you claiming that,'Dogs store puppies have proven to be healthier than dogs obtained from any other source'

That Sweden study though Liberty Belle disected and looked at claims etc, but you have no research, just the fact that pet shop pups get offered lower insurance. Nothing to back your claim that pet store pups are healthier than any other source, because you are claiming any other source, so you would have to then break down all the other sources and claims made to find out if your claim is true. Insurance premiums for dogs are not just done on health risk, but also price and type of a dog, aggressive type breeds will push premiums up because of higher risk for public liability.If I went and bought a Pit Bull from a top show breeder and paid a couple thousand dollars for this dog. I would expect to pay a higher premium for its insurance than someone who bought a toy breed pup for a couple hundred dollars from a pet store. Firstly my dog would have a higher cost to replace and being a higher risk dog for aggression, its public liability would be higher risk. A higher premium is not an automatic indicator that a dog is less healthy. All your stat could be reflecting for pet store pups and insuring them against the whole of the rest of the puppy breeding and selling population is that pet stores sell lower cost pups that they predominantly sell toy/small breeds that are low/non aggressive breeds and are more likely to have a four week free insurance that insurance companies offer to volume breeders or sellers of pups that fives an automatic discount if you carry the insurance on. Insurance companies know that with pets, the first company you insure your pup with will most likely be the one you stay with for the life of the dog, so in the long run they will make up the risk of lower of the first year of insurance..

Yes, USDA licensed commercial breeders are inspected prior to getting their licensed and "might" get inspected again ("USDA uses a risk-based inspection system to make the best use of its resources." Source: USDA). This is because there are only about 120 inspectors for the entire country (ca. 7300 licensed breeders at end of 2014).

Commercial breeders have more scrutiny than any other breeders, at least here in the US. Assuming the pipedreamerfarmer's numbers are accurate, each inspector would have fewer than 15 dog breeding facilities to inspect every year. A bit of a strain for government workers, I know. Also, they act on complaints, so if there is a problem with the puppies they sell, it's investigated immediately. Claims of high incidence of illness in pet store puppies are totally unsubstantiated. There is evidence that the pet industry provides more veterinary care for puppies than the public at large. DVM/VPI Insurance Group, the largest provider of animal health insurance, testified during a hearing in California that "preconceived notions" concerning pet store puppies "could not have been more wrong."

After insuring more than 89,000 pet store puppies and kittens and handling health claims from a pool of more than 500,000 insured animals, the insurance company reduced its premiums for pet store puppies and kittens substantially by as much as 22 percent compared to premiums charged for animals from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary attention during the first 12 weeks of age than any other puppies and, as a result, have fewer claims. (Source: PIJAC)When you consider that people who buy a puppy from a pet store are probably more inclined to also purchase insurance, the figures are even more impressive.

No an inspector has to inspect around 61 breeding facilities a year and around 15 of those would be dog breeding facilities. Your figure for insurance show that insurance companies are making a lot of money working closely with pet stores as the veterinary profession does to. All feeding one another, so it pays you all to scratch each others back. Insurance companies are not interested in individual pups, but numbers and profit lines. You are givingf them enough trade, that profit is sustainable even with a reasonable amount of sick puppies, but there also is the issues of them being poorly socialized, but you don't seem to want to discuss that.

The insurance companies make money from high volume pups and the reduction in insurance premiums is what you call a sweetener in a very competitive market. Most insurance companies give nice sweeteners to high volume breeders and the pet stores to push their insurance on customers and if they get the buyers details because of giving something like four weeks free insurance on a pup. The insurance company then contact the puppy owner frightening the shit out of them about what could happen to their pup and what if they could not afford the vets bills, they then guilt trip them, so that is why pet store bought pups owners are more inclined to purchase insurance.Inspectors have to inspect around 61 breeding facilities by my calculations a year, with around 15 of them being dog breeding facilities. They also have to deal with all the complaints about all breeding facilities, so the work load is a lot bigger than your calculation.

Sure, I can discuss the socialization aspect of commercially bred dogs but only from a personal viewpoint. About eight years ago, my mother purchased a pet store purebred Westy. The dog was seven months old and had languished in the pet shop for many months. She was very fearful, but as you know socialization is not the sole determinant of personality. Environment only affects so much. Genetics is a major factor. My mom's dog is a happy healthy well-adjusted Pet who brings her much joy. I believe that many commercial breeders breed for important traits such as good personality and robust health. I strongly believe that there is a place for commercially-bred dogs and pet stores in society. They Provide a valuable service.

Insurance companies make money from everyone they insure. Pet store animals made up less than 20% of the pool of total insured animals. That means that over 80% were not. Would that larger group not be the ones to enjoy lower rates? No, because they are the higher risk group when it comes to health. No insurance company will lower rates on a group that is higher risk. That's just basic business sense.

"No insurance company will lower rates on a group that is higher risk. That's just basic business sense." Yes, I agree with this. But the claim that pet store puppies are so much healthier than puppies from other sources that DVM/VPI dropped its insurance premiums by over 22% sounds so unlikely, I am checking it at source and will report back. The info is no longer on the PIJAC website that I can find, by the way - and if it were true you'd expect it to be. But let's see what I can get confirmed.

Jemima, the insurance is a deal from the insurance companies to reel the pups in and as pet stores in the USA are high volume sellers it gets them all but a captive market. It is an introductory offer and the premiums after the first year I suspect then are risen to the rest of the market. I get this deal in the UK with my et insurers. I only breed one or two litters a year. If they take the insurance on from the one I started on the pup for 4 weeks free insurance, they get a discount. It is a misleading stat.Liberty Belle they also have to deal with all complaints and they cover vast areas and I suspect as all things there is more time spent on paper work. So you are taking one example of a dog to base an opinion on, that commercial breeding of dogs is a good thing. LOL

So Liberty Belle you admit that pet store pups are fearful and your story about your Mum's dog you left two important individuals out of the story the parents of your Mum's dog. How fearful do you think their life was?Health is not just a physical thing. So you think it is okay to rear pups that are fearful and under socialized, because genetically if you use the breeds that can cope with a bad start in life, if you love them lots they will be okay in the end. Could you enlighten in to why you think CBE and Pet stores have a place in society and what is exactly the valuable service they provide. All I can think is cheap fearful puppies and as for the parents?

Funny that Jung agrees with Freud that a person’s past and childhood experiences determined future behaviour. The same has been found in researching dogs behaviour. Socialization is not the sole denominator of temperament I would agree, but that does not make it right to rear pups with very little socialization, as you have agreed this is the case and makes it harder for them to adapt to a home life and some Liberty Belle never do never adapt, but I suppose that is okay if you can detach yourself and keep saying, "They are just property, thus they have no rights." Very philosophical of you.

Oh for heaven's sake.....pearls before swine, but here is one reference to the information. I suggest you contact PIJAC directly for further information. https://www.pijac.org/sites/default/files/ri_-_hb_5117_repeal_pet_care_services_tax_alt.pdf

Liberty Belle what was exactly stated then was'pet store puppies are as healthy as those from any other source, and often healthier.' You try to tell us that pet store puppies from pet stores are 'healthier than any other sources',which is not what was said. The study has to be taken with a piece of salt though until you find out who was funding the research, because so far all other studies found the opposite to this study. AS the insurance companies working with pet stores, make money out of the arrangement, you would have to see all data that supports this claim.Must laugh when I see those supporting pet store pups spouting 'The preeminent study by Cornell University', but none seem to give a link to the study or appear to have any stats or data available from it.Is it possible for you to give us a link to actually read the study and look at its data, as I presume you have done so Liberty Belle???????

Don't mock what you don't understand. Tarot is a form of Jungian psychotherapy. It's a type of meditation, promoting self-awareness. A very interesting topic, but this is probably not the forum for that.

'maybe I'm just a free thinker who doesn't sign on to anyone's bandwagon unconditionally.'Don't sound like a very free thinker, when you can not even comprehend that another animal species other than yourself can have rights. I would think that, that sounds more like the ramblings of a closed mind with blinkers on.

Nope, I have examined the idea of "animal rights" critically and find that it just doesn't hold water. Animals don't have rights. As to animal welfare, which most people claim to support while disavowing animal rightism, AW is simply AR light....as many posters here admit as you bandy about both terms interchangably.

An animal has the right to welfare, so thus like a human animal it is established it has a right and that is a right to welfare.What does not hold water? Could you point us to the papers scientific etc that makes your critical mind favor that animals have no rights.

Kim Kavin's 'The Dog Merchants' is very informative about the mindset of large scale dog breeders in America. In a nutshell, they're often family farm owners who've discovered that breeding and selling dogs was more lucrative than sharecropping for agribusiness corporations... and that dogs were easier to wrangle than steers or hogs. They're not physically cruel, but they view the dogs they breed as livestock, pure and simple. Farmers generally don't spend much time worrying about how the livestock feels about their quality of life.

SUBSCRIBE TO PDE - THE BLOG

Search This Blog

About Me

I grew up with pedigree dogs - English Setters, Great Danes, Labradors and, most recently, Flatcoated Retrievers. Today, I share my home with an assortment of dogs, purebred and mutts. In 2008, I directed Pedigree Dogs Exposed, a BBC documentary which uncovered the extent of health and welfare problems in pedigree dogs. The film has now been shown in more than 20 countries. Campaigning for improved purebred dog health is now a great passion - one fuelled by the fear that those who currently view themselves as the guardians of pedigree dogs are, often unwittingly, the agents of their demise.
My mission, then, is to continue to highlight where things have gone wrong and to encourage breeders and Kennel Clubs to embrace reform - particularly when it comes to harmful phenotypes and inbreeding.